Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

"Roads ,courts,defense,schools" are NOT built by the government. They are built by contractors who submit the lowest bids. We all pay for it.

And don't start with the 47% who pay no taxes. What do you call gas taxes,food taxes,sales taxes? And besides, isn't the goal to build up and make stronger the middle and poor classes thereby making the economy better? By maybe--oh--I don't know--make shit here instead of China,Taiwan,Indonesia,Korea,etc,etc. In addition ,that trickle down shit should be called trickle up as it's been practiced by the 1 or 2 %.

 

Have you even read the parable we're talking about? Because if you have, and you agree with Bulbus that the lesson presented is "if things don't break that would be more beneficial to the economy", than I truly do pitty you. Paste me where I, or the author of the parable ever made a argument against insurance, or accident preparedness. It literally has ZERO to do with anything we, or the parable are talking about. The fact that this was even brought up shows an absolutely frightening amount of ignorance. I originally cited it to show that he wasn't looking at all of the effects of his proposed manufacturing subsidy, and him saying a manufacturing subsidy is good for the economy, is the EXACT same thing as claiming breaking a window is good for it. Now, he managed to completely distort what me, and the parable were pointing out, but he certainly did not successfully refute its logic.

 

Lol... Well, I don't like taxes at all, so 47% not paying any sounds absolutely splendid. I'm bitching about the other 53% who actually are.

Besides, that 47% still pays the most burdensome tax of all, inflation... Which should be alleviated as well.

 

What post in this thread are you referring to? Quote me on that.

Here's a criticism of your view (as I understand it) presented by Balbus:

How do you respond?

 

I'd respond by saying if that is what he thinks I seem to be telling the baker, he in turn seems to be extremely confused. He's missed my entire point, and the point of the story I referenced him too. Everything Balbus has said, about 'insurance', about preparedness, about things he imagines I'm telling the baker... has been completely irrelevant. My point is that his economic proposals (in this case a Manufacturing subsidy) are not taking the entire picture into consideration. Here is the parable in it's entirety. I'm sure if you'd actually read it, it's purpose would not be lost on you as it was on Balbus.

 

So, we could revive the U.S. auto industry, by setting cars on fire, same with housing, set neighborhoods afire, and quickly reduce unemployment and spread the wealth.

 

The baker in your story is a moron because he didn't plan for the possibility of a broken window.

The story illustrates the circular flow of money. The tailor lost out but the glazier profited. The tailor will have to wait for another day for profit since his goods are luxury and the glazier's goods are needs. However, the economy survived, the flow of money continued.

 

Viewed from the Left, all that is important is that money is put back into the economy. It matters not if a suit was purchased, or an act of vandalism was repaired. Most important, the money was spent and not accumulated.

 

Inflation is incredibly low right now, and considering the main financial instrument of that 47% is debt, higher inflation would be a blessing for them. In fact it'd be the same for substantially more than that 47%

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Debt is the main financial instrument for 73% of the bottom 90% of Americans.

 

Wrong

This is exactly what I meant when I said to you - I’ve noticed in you a tendency to go so far with an idea, so far as it to fit in with your views but not to go beyond it to something that might reveal the flaws in your chosen ideology.

Maybe you need to ask have I got the entire lesson or is there still more to learn.

First I’d say that few things are just two sided and you must begin to try and see things from multiple sides, and then you need to think things through and that’s what I’m urging you to do.

But it assumes that the accident would not have happened, and that if it had that the baker had not got insurance, and if it hadn’t that the suit maker ‘stimulus’ would have actually take place or that the baker did not blown the money in speculation that did not help the community but instead backfired and was detrimental to the community.

You have looked at this so far as it backed up what you wanted but not further.

Again I think you need to re-read – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

“would have occurred anyway if those resources had been left alone” – repeat left alone – I’d ask how you were going to prevent the accident?

It is about being prepared for when bad things happen and so being able to give assistance. You seem to be saying that if bad things never happen then that would be good for the economy, but those of us in the real world know that bad things can happen.

As I’ve said you go so far then seem to stop, I mean you only have to look at the parable with any more depth to see the problems with it.
The thing is that the accident happens, saying it would be better if it didn’t happen doesn’t work because it did happen (unless you have a time machine and can go back to stop it happening).

And since it did happen then yes it is going to give work to the glazier, but it is a big and rather illogical step from there to claiming that it would be a good thing to smash all windows on purpose.

Keynesian ideas work perfectly ok without accidents they don’t need accidents BUT it is an economic system that prepares for bad things happen rather than just hoping they will not and telling people to spend the money that could be used to be prepared causing them great hardship when the inevitable bad then does happen.

But if the baker is prepared, he has budgeted in the assurance payments and separately saved up for the coat so when the accident happens the assurance pays for the window and he still has the money for the coat. Unless you are saying (as you seem to) that the baker shouldn’t be prepared and not spend his money on insurance but on other things?

 

Wrong

Fine…now I’ll ask AGAIN - how would it govern and be financed?

 

Wrong

OH please try and read – Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36


There never has been a ‘free market’ and there never will be because the move toward it gives so much power and influence to wealth which corrupts things to its own advantage.

 

Wrong

Been there and bought the T-shirt.

Here is something I wrote some time ago for this forum - As to the extreme neoliberal Austrian school’s ideas to me they always seemed ill thought through, with its emphasis on theoretical logic over empirical evidence (to me fantasy over reality).

It also comes up against the same problem with all ‘free market’ models it has no worthwhile mechanisms for dealing with a crash besides letting things fall.

Now you might say that under the Austrian model crashes are factored in and so wouldn’t be so bad but then I’d say the same for the Keynesian model.

We could just followed an Austrian School plan and let things crash and burn although it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theoretical logic turns out to be the fantasies they look like and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-mart (while those with wealth are cushioned from the hardships).

As I’ve mentioned to me the Austrian school seems a lot like an economic version of Social Darwinism that would always favour wealth over the rest of society.

 

Wrong

I think you really need to bone up on your scientific method – you are not putting forward evidence just assertion and as I’ve said just because it could of happened is NO proof that it would have happened.

I don’t think anyone would say that would they but it is a matter of benefit. As I’ve pointed out to you before you need to define what you mean by ‘prosperity’ and its distribution within society.

Anther assertion, but think what would be the degree, how wide would be the coverage and would it be fairly equal at virtually all levels as with say the NHS?

 

Wrong

The lesson I’ve presented is that it is better to be prepared for problems rather than just hoping they don’t happen.

OK I will - you said and I quote - Insurance has absolutely nothing to do with anything. We're talking about the money spent on repairing a broken window. A third party service that spreads the burden to the baker over a period of time doesn't change anything.

Doesn’t change anything - to you paying for insurance still means the baker is not spending it elsewhere.

That implies that to you people should not have insurance instead it would be better in your economic model if the baker spent that money elsewhere and just hoped nothing bad ever happened.

 

Wrong

Again I think you miss the point because you haven’t thought it through, asserting that I don’t get it that am confused and irrelevant does not refute my interpretation it just seems to indicate you can’t address the criticisms levelled at your viewpoint.

 

Wrong

I said - For example if you want say manufacturing to remain stable or improve in an economic down turn it might be a good thing to give it assistance. (my bold)

As I’ve indicated in Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

One thing government can do when bad things happen like in a serious economic dip is help out. But that only really works in a system set up to be prepared for bad things happening the problem was that neoliberal ideas had persuaded many that nothing could go wrong.

 

[quotesaid - For example if you want say manufacturing to remain stable or improve in an economic down turn it might be a good thing to give it assistance. (my bold)
][/quote]
Agree! Manufacturing is not just jobs for local economies but a matter of national defense. Imagine if a war broke out and all of our heavy tooling and industrial machining capacity was gone? Bush and Obama knew that TARP was needed to keep the auto industry from collapsing and machinery sent to China or scrapped. If it was left up to short sighted people like Murdoch, Indiana treasurer trying to get Lugars seat or Romney vulture Capitolist, we would be defenseless.

 

But politicians sure do have an answer when things do fail… AIG and the others were "too big to fail" (so we were told).

Well damn, how'd that happen? Why did we allow them to get too big in the first place?

My answer would be as Balbus said:
neoliberal ideas had persuaded many that nothing could go wrong.

Only my take is the financial sector elites knew and didn't care if things went wrong. They said "Let's ride this bitch for all it's worth. We're immune from penalty."

We let them get away and were made to pay for their arrogance. But the fact that they have been and still are the number one donor to US political elections has nothing to do with this.

 

"neoliberal ideas had persuaded many that nothing could go wrong."

Really?

Since the thread mentions "welfare spending" and "poverty", why are those terms being avoided in most all conversation?